What if Eve had not eaten the apple?
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Marc claims:
I make no statements that "God Exists" is a Truth. I say I BELIEVE it is true.
So what? I can say I believe invisible pink dragons exist, it's true!
I've tried and successfully "detected" God's presence.
A bold face lie, I never thought you'd resort to such tactics.
I make no statements that "God Exists" is a Truth. I say I BELIEVE it is true.
So what? I can say I believe invisible pink dragons exist, it's true!
I've tried and successfully "detected" God's presence.
A bold face lie, I never thought you'd resort to such tactics.
XQse me?(Q) said:
Firstly, I would advise you to edit the ridiculous post, or I would ask an administrator to do so for you if you find it difficult. Apply the proper formating and stop attributing false statements to me, thanks much. And to think: you dare state anything about bold faced lies?
Additionally, you simply demonstrated your bold faced misunderstanding of my position. What I believe I've successfully "detected" is God's presence. While truth may be independent of belief, what we think is true is not, hence your improperly formatted response above has nothing to do with what I stated.
Since your brain can't process it, what I've been getting at is this: I make no claims of truth, I only make claims of what I believe to be true. If you believe what I believe, that's nice - I'm not saying its truth. Its what I/you/we believe.
See the last statement in Cris' proper reply and try to learn from it, thanks.
In my opinion it will never be; once the scientific method is administered by the scientist it will never be independent of the scientist's perception - and thus what the scientist believes. When scientific principles are updated it means our view of things have changed. Even if I prove what I believe to be wrong, isn't the method of proof administered by me?Cris said:
Not by the scientific method, no, and yes, since it is the only one objectively applicable to the situation then it cannot be objectively distinguished at present.
My position is this; I don't claim truth; I don't claim knowledge - I claim belief. While my beliefs may change, knowledge of truth will not. Hopefully, as my beliefs evolve (if necessary), they will approach the realm of knowledge and truth.
In my opinion it will never be; once the scientific method is administered by the scientist it will never be independent of the scientist's perception - and thus what the scientist believes.
Are you not familiar with that method? One need not be a scientist to invoke the method, don't ya know? Anyone can use it. Try it yourself sometime.
In fact, why not try using the method on some of your beliefs, just to try it out, kick the tires, so to speak?
Are you not familiar with that method? One need not be a scientist to invoke the method, don't ya know? Anyone can use it. Try it yourself sometime.
In fact, why not try using the method on some of your beliefs, just to try it out, kick the tires, so to speak?
You state this as if you think you are God. Why not provide some support to illustrate how you arrived at your conclusion?(Q) said:
And how would you know this? You're not a scientist I presume.
I would hope that all the posts behind that letter aren't filled with such empty comments.
You state this as if you think you are God.
No, I'm just an alien head in a jar poised a few hundred miles in orbit around the earth.
Why not provide some support to illustrate how you arrived at your conclusion?
If one were to be able to talk with a god, there would be only one god. If only one god, he would have contacted each and every individual on the planet with exactly the same message for all, including you and me.
And how would you know this? You're not a scientist I presume.
I don't get what you mean? Do you not know the scientific method?
I would hope that all the posts behind that letter aren't filled with such empty comments.
Only to the empty headed.
No, I'm just an alien head in a jar poised a few hundred miles in orbit around the earth.
Why not provide some support to illustrate how you arrived at your conclusion?
If one were to be able to talk with a god, there would be only one god. If only one god, he would have contacted each and every individual on the planet with exactly the same message for all, including you and me.
And how would you know this? You're not a scientist I presume.
I don't get what you mean? Do you not know the scientific method?
I would hope that all the posts behind that letter aren't filled with such empty comments.
Only to the empty headed.
Very true, but humanity exists in such a biological, cultural, and social variety that I wonder if the message(s) would be seen (interpreted) the same by every individual.(Q) said:
Even consider this: is it possible that the message may be more in line with one interpretation as opposed to the other?
Apparently everybody here does? I do see the source of your confusion though and I'm at fault. Clearly one doesn't have to be a scientist to invoke the scientific method but one who properly invokes the method is a scientist (see the temporal difference).
I guess I'm at fault here, again; I assumed that when you referred to the specific individual's post as "a bold faced lie" you were tying it back to the intial part of your post.
Since you actually cited your support (quoted above in this post) I now assume it wasn't. Thus it was indeed an empty comment as far as I'm concerned because I can never be exactly sure if my head is filled with your thoughts - in your case I assume I am "empty headed".
Point? Your style of posting appears to assume people think exactly as you do and share your ideas (by the lack of supporting info as if something is "obvious" and even by your use of "We already knew that" as if you speak for everyone reading the thread).
Certainly you haven't spoken for me.
Very true, but humanity exists in such a biological, cultural, and social variety that I wonder if the message(s) would be seen (interpreted) the same by every individual.
So what? Aren't we ALL gods children? Didn't he create everyone? Isnt' he all-powerful and all knowing?
It is even within the grasp of human technology to clearly reveal a message to all the peoples of Earth.
Even consider this: is it possible that the message may be more in line with one interpretation as opposed to the other?
Then, an all-powerful god has failed in successfully delivering that message, once again, something even within human abilities to accomplish.
And if we look at the various religions with their various gods, we can clearly see the blatant differences between them, something a case of misinterpretation cannot explain.
see the temporal difference
Yah.
Certainly you haven't spoken for me.
Sorry, sometimes I assume common knowledge is common to everyone.
So what? Aren't we ALL gods children? Didn't he create everyone? Isnt' he all-powerful and all knowing?
It is even within the grasp of human technology to clearly reveal a message to all the peoples of Earth.
Even consider this: is it possible that the message may be more in line with one interpretation as opposed to the other?
Then, an all-powerful god has failed in successfully delivering that message, once again, something even within human abilities to accomplish.
And if we look at the various religions with their various gods, we can clearly see the blatant differences between them, something a case of misinterpretation cannot explain.
see the temporal difference
Yah.
Certainly you haven't spoken for me.
Sorry, sometimes I assume common knowledge is common to everyone.
Yes, it appears so but I doubt it'll ever happen. But look at all the religions out there: you don't have in depth knowledge of all for sure but I would assume you know of some religious propositions. I wonder who one Earth who is above a certain age limit would ask; what is Christianity, what is Judaism and what is Islam?(Q) said:
The clear difference between some "technological message" and a message from God is the tangibility of the concerned. We aren't all Quantum Physicists and String Theorists but we all can read Computing for Dummies.
If there's, God, and God is sending a message out there though, the presence of those three religions, at least, should allow God some credit.
God is clearly within the realms of reality. What human channel can honestly claim to give humanity an obsolute view on what reality is?
Whether or not such a task is within human abilities to unambiguously communicate to all humanity (every single individual) is still an open one in my mind. The term all-powerful cannot mean being able to do everything, it must mean being able to do everything within the realms of possibility.
Differences do no indicate discrepancies. I'm sure 'mis'interpretation can allow differences to arise. I do not see how you can arrive at the conclusion that 'mis'interpretation cannot explain the differences or discrepancies though; that is certainly not "common knowledge", not even in your case.
Then, here, you are at fault.
God is beyond any mans' comprehension.
Our ability to comprehend the universe and everything in it and outside of it is limited. Our ability to understand why we are are here, and how, is limited.
Genesis is, as is the rest of the bible, a collection of analogies - parables. Stories for the layman to understand in easy to digest forms. Never take anything literally, it wasn't written so.
It is possible to relate every story in Genesis to what we have discovered about the universe around us and to our lives. If, I can do that, then what does that suggest about the knowledge of the people who wrote these stories down in the first place. Ask any question and I'll try to give you an answer.
Our ability to comprehend the universe and everything in it and outside of it is limited. Our ability to understand why we are are here, and how, is limited.
Genesis is, as is the rest of the bible, a collection of analogies - parables. Stories for the layman to understand in easy to digest forms. Never take anything literally, it wasn't written so.
It is possible to relate every story in Genesis to what we have discovered about the universe around us and to our lives. If, I can do that, then what does that suggest about the knowledge of the people who wrote these stories down in the first place. Ask any question and I'll try to give you an answer.
you know you exist, but the reasons for your existence are beyond your comprehension.
Why do I have to define something to comprehend it?
But if you must; God is the life, the planet, the Universe and everything in it, out of it, and any other universes that may or may not exist.
If you can think of another word which describes all of that, then I'll use that word instead
We live in God, we are part of God, and only God may or may not know why it bothered. Maybe it justed wanted to have free will, rather than be just a vast game of billiards.
Why do I have to define something to comprehend it?
But if you must; God is the life, the planet, the Universe and everything in it, out of it, and any other universes that may or may not exist.
If you can think of another word which describes all of that, then I'll use that word instead
We live in God, we are part of God, and only God may or may not know why it bothered. Maybe it justed wanted to have free will, rather than be just a vast game of billiards.
I wonder who one Earth who is above a certain age limit would ask; what is Christianity, what is Judaism and what is Islam?
Anyone can find out easily enough. But what they'll find are doctrines that are antithetical to one another, so much so that one would think there were as many gods as there were religions; tens of thousands, in fact.
If there's, God, and God is sending a message out there though, the presence of those three religions, at least, should allow God some credit.
It doesn't, though. And as I mentioned, there are tens of thousands of religions in the world, all with varying descriptions of their gods. That certainly does not serve as credit towards a single god, does it?
God is clearly within the realms of reality.
If that were the case, we would all see him, be able to talk with him, and most importanty, there would be only one religion and one god to ALL people in the world. Clearly god is NOT within the realm of reality.
What human channel can honestly claim to give humanity an obsolute view on what reality is?
No one has to define reality for you, reality defines itself quite nicely. And so far, reality has never shown gods to exist.
Whether or not such a task is within human abilities to unambiguously communicate to all humanity (every single individual) is still an open one in my mind.
Why should it be? It's a simple matter of translating a single message in all languages - what's so difficult about that?
The term all-powerful cannot mean being able to do everything, it must mean being able to do everything within the realms of possibility.
I would suspect, according to theists, that the creation of a universe would be considered all-powerful. Sending a message to all the folks of this puny planetoid would be childs play, don't ya think?
I do not see how you can arrive at the conclusion that 'mis'interpretation cannot explain the differences or discrepancies though
It's a very simple matter of comparing the tens of thousands of religious doctrine in the world with each other and finding glaring and blatant differences and discrepancies.
Surely, a single god who revealed his single message to all has failed dramatically.
Anyone can find out easily enough. But what they'll find are doctrines that are antithetical to one another, so much so that one would think there were as many gods as there were religions; tens of thousands, in fact.
If there's, God, and God is sending a message out there though, the presence of those three religions, at least, should allow God some credit.
It doesn't, though. And as I mentioned, there are tens of thousands of religions in the world, all with varying descriptions of their gods. That certainly does not serve as credit towards a single god, does it?
God is clearly within the realms of reality.
If that were the case, we would all see him, be able to talk with him, and most importanty, there would be only one religion and one god to ALL people in the world. Clearly god is NOT within the realm of reality.
What human channel can honestly claim to give humanity an obsolute view on what reality is?
No one has to define reality for you, reality defines itself quite nicely. And so far, reality has never shown gods to exist.
Whether or not such a task is within human abilities to unambiguously communicate to all humanity (every single individual) is still an open one in my mind.
Why should it be? It's a simple matter of translating a single message in all languages - what's so difficult about that?
The term all-powerful cannot mean being able to do everything, it must mean being able to do everything within the realms of possibility.
I would suspect, according to theists, that the creation of a universe would be considered all-powerful. Sending a message to all the folks of this puny planetoid would be childs play, don't ya think?
I do not see how you can arrive at the conclusion that 'mis'interpretation cannot explain the differences or discrepancies though
It's a very simple matter of comparing the tens of thousands of religious doctrine in the world with each other and finding glaring and blatant differences and discrepancies.
Surely, a single god who revealed his single message to all has failed dramatically.
you know you exist, but the reasons for your existence are beyond your comprehension.
No, they are not. We simply exist.
If you can think of another word which describes all of that, then I'll use that word instead
That word IS 'universe.' No other words are required.
No, they are not. We simply exist.
If you can think of another word which describes all of that, then I'll use that word instead
That word IS 'universe.' No other words are required.
How do you know? It's a possibility, that's all.
Does "Universe" cover what the universe exists in, and all it contains, the astrophysics, chemistry, nature, us and everything else. I think most people conjure up an image of the Universe as a bubble containing all the other stuff.
Find me another word. And what was the question?
Does "Universe" cover what the universe exists in, and all it contains, the astrophysics, chemistry, nature, us and everything else. I think most people conjure up an image of the Universe as a bubble containing all the other stuff.
Find me another word. And what was the question?